Past Blog Posts

DOS issued revised guidance in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s ruling on July 13, 2017, regarding the definition of “close familial relationship.” In addition to what was previously defined under U.S. government guidance as “parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancé, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half, and including step relationships,” the District Court in Hawaii ruled that “close family” in Executive Order (EO) 13780 also includes “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunt and uncles, nephews and nieces, and cousins.”

Following a hearing yesterday, a federal judge in Hawaii granted the plaintiffs’ motion to convert the court’s temporary restraining order enjoining the government from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of President Trump’s Executive Order 13780 nationwide to a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury was likely if the preliminary injunction was not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counseled in favor of granting the requested relief.

Like this:

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said during a press conference on Thursday that his office is filing a motion asking a federal judge in Seattle to rule that an existing injunction against Trump’s earlier travel ban order applies to parallel portions of the president’s new directive. The states of Washington and Minnesota obtained the broadest injunction against Trump’s original order last month. Oregon was formally admitted to the case on Thursday, and the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts announced plans yesterday for their states to join the effort.

The Department of Justice indicated in a February 16, 2017 court filing that President Trump intends to rescind the January 27, 2017 Executive Order and issue a new order in its place. DOJ urged the court to “hold its consideration of the case until the President issues the new Order,” and the Ninth Circuit subsequently issued an order staying en banc proceedings, pending further order of the court. In a February 16, 2017 news conference, President Trump also stated that he plans to issue a new Executive Order on immigration next week to “protect our country.”

A broad range of voices, including government officials, academic institutions, faith leaders, and civil rights groups, have expressed their opposition to President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order targeting Muslims and refugees. Notably, consular officials, Foreign Service Officers, and members of the Civil Service released a dissent memo. In addition, former cabinet secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, military service members, and intelligence community professionals sent a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly and other government officials opposing the EO.